From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Ed Berry provides an update and background on climate lawfare in his home state.

Climate Lawsuits in Montana

There have been three climate lawsuits in Montana from Our children’s Trust:

1.  Barhaugh v Montana in 2011.
2.  Held v Montana in 2022-2023.
3.  Lighthiser v Trump in 2025.

There has been little change in the wording of these climate lawsuits. HvM still has AG Bullock’s name in it even though Montana elected him Governor as of 2012. The science argument in these three climate lawsuits has not changed.

They all claim the government is damaging the physical and mental health of children by allowing human CO2 emissions to continue.

But the schools and parents are damaging their children’s mental and health brainwashing them to believe human carbon emissions are destroying the planet.

The fundamental science issue in all climate lawsuits is whether these unstated hypothesis are true or false:

(1)   Human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.

(2)   This CO2 increase causes global warming.

(3)   This global warming causes the plaintiffs claimed damages.

The plaintiffs assume these three hypotheses are true, and they will admit it in court. Otherwise, they would have no basis for their claims.

To prevail, the defense needs to prove only one of these hypotheses is false. In fact, it is easy to prove all three hypotheses are false in a court of law.

Here’s a critical point that few people understand:

The scientific method says it is impossible to prove a hypothesis is true so the alarmists cannot prove these hypotheses are true. The plaintiffs have the burden of proof.

However, we can prove these hypotheses are false by showing they make one false prediction or contradiction with data. This is the key to science.

This is what parents and teachers and media should be teaching the kids.

1.      Barhaugh v. Montana

Barhaugh v. Montana: Petition for Original Jurisdiction, Montana Supreme Court, 2011, was the first climate lawsuit in Montana.

To justify its petition to the Montana Supreme Court, BvM says on page 5:

• “Through the normal litigation and appeals process, this issue would likely take a minimum of two to three years just to reach this Court, in contrast to the average 60 days needed to resolve original proceedings.
• “Considering the scientific evidence cited by the Respondent, there is not enough time to effectively arrest the effect of human-caused climate change unless immediate action is taken.”
• “Climatological “tipping points” lie directly ahead and drive the urgency of taking action:
• “The further we look into the future, the worse the costs of inaction will become. The longer we do nothing, the greater the risks of an irreversible climate catastrophe, such as a massive rise in sea levels, which could make the world unable to support anything like the current levels of population and economic activity. The costs and risks of inaction are overwhelmingly worse than the moderate and manageable costs of an immediate effort to reduce carbon emissions.”

Barhaugh v. Montana justified its petition to the Montana Supreme Court by predicting an irreversible climatological “tipping point” would occur in the next three years.

The Petition is based upon its assumption that the three unstated climate hypotheses are true. Assuming these hypotheses are true, the plaintiffs claimed certain damages. But all their claims are based on their assumption that their three hypotheses above are true.

The Intervention led by Dr. Edwin X Berry of Bigfork, Montana, prevented the Montana Supreme Court from ruling in favor of the Petition.

Berry’s Intervenors presented evidence that contradicted the Petition’s assumptions.

Their evidence constrained Montana Attorney General Bullock’s reply to the Court because he could not go on record disputing the Intervenors’ evidence that the Petitioners’ claims about climate science may not be true.

Montana AG Bullock wrote:

• This disputed record is just one example of the factual determinations this Court would need to make to rule for Petitioners.
• In addition, it would need to address, among other issues, the current state of climate change science; the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change; how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate; whether the benefits of energy production must be balanced against the potential harm of climate change; and the concrete limits, if any, of the alleged “affirmative duty.”

The Montana Supreme Court ruled:

• As the State points out, the petition incorporates factual claims such as that the State “has been prevented by the Legislature from taking any action to regulate [greenhouse gas] emissions.”
• The State posits that the relief requested by Petitioners would require numerous other factual determinations, such as the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change and how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate.
• This Court is ill-equipped to resolve the factual assertions presented by Petitioners. We further conclude that Petitioners have not established urgency or emergency factors that would preclude litigation in a trial court followed by the normal appeal process.

The court could not determine whether the Petitioners or the Intervenors were correct about climate because, in the court’s view, there is no scientific consensus that is sufficiently well-settled to decide the case as a matter of law.

The Court rejected the Barhaugh v. Montana Petition.

Quentin Rhoades, Attorney for the Intervenors, wrote that the Montana Supreme Court ruled against the Petitioners because,

• “There is no scientific consensus that is sufficiently well-settled to allow a court to decide the case purely as a matter of law.

Rhoades concluded,

• “This establishes once and for all, at least as far as Montana law is concerned, climate science is decidedly not settled.
• “And not only is it the highest court of a sovereign state, but it ruled that there is no scientific consensus that is sufficiently well-settled to allow for them to decide the case purely as a matter of law.” 

3.      Held v Montana

Montana AG Knudsen should have dismissed Held v Montana based on the now-proven-false climate prediction of Barhaugh v. Montana and the Montana Supreme Court ruling.

The Montana Supreme Court ruled in 2011,

• “There is no scientific consensus that is sufficiently well-settled to allow a court to decide the case purely as a matter of law.”

Consensus has no bearing on scientific truth. Montana’s AG Knudsen should have known this because all trial lawyers learn it.

Republican AG Knudson should have argued that consensus proves nothing in science. The only relevant proof in science is proof that a hypothesis is false.

Yet AG Knudsen stipulated “consensus” was valid at the beginning of the HvM trial:

• “for the purposes of trial, there is a scientific consensus that earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.”

AG Knudsen’s “consensus” stipulation contradicted the Montana Supreme Court.

AG Knudsen’s climate stipulation put him to the left of former Democrat AG Bullock.

On 9/16/2025, Matthew Brown, of the lying Associated Press, wrote about HvM:

• Young climate activists and their attorneys who won a landmark global warming trial against the state of Montana are trying to convince a federal judge to block President Donald Trump’s executive orders promoting fossil fuels.

No, they did not “win.” Montana AG Knudsen purposely LOST Held v Montana as Montana WEF man ordered him to do.

Knudsen produced NO defense, NO relevant expert witness, and NO challenge to the plaintiffs’ expert witness claims. He laid on the grass and let the opposition trample on Montana.

Knudsen’s purposeful loss of HvM is the worst betrayal by an elected official of the people who voted for him that I have ever witnessed.

4.      Lighthiser v Trump

Lighthiser v. Trump uses the same bad science as Barhaugh v. Montana and Held v Montana.

On September 17, 2025, I traveled to Missoula and sat in on part of the Lighthiser v Trump trial. In my view, Trump’s attorney made good arguments to dismiss LvT. Now, we wait for the judge to decide whether to dismiss LvT.

If LvT continues, I encourage Trump’s attorney to use the arguments that I describe in my other articles to prove hypotheses (1), (2), and (3) are false. They are easy proofs to make in court.

If the LvT trial continues, Trump’s attorney should plan to prove hypotheses (1) and (2) are false and as a bonus prove that (3) is also false. This defeat would remove the influence of the climate fraud on politics.

Comment:

September 17 and 18, 2025, was a two-day injunction hearing in the case of Lighthiser v. Trump, in the Federal District of Montana Butte Division.  While federal Judge Dana Christensen listened to a few more of the plaintiffs’ witnesses and closing arguments, he was mulling over a few difficult legal questions regarding the plaintiffs’ injunction request. [Source: Missoula Current]

“In your motion, it says you want a preliminary injunction from me prohibiting the defendants from implementing these three orders. What exactly does that look like? I enjoin them, and what else do I do?” Christensen asked plaintiffs’ attorney Julia Olson during her closing statement. “Let’s assume these defendants elect to continue to implement policy favoring fossil fuels regardless of what I say. What will I do then?”

Olson said the defense attorneys hadn’t contested the statement that the central purpose of the executive orders is unleashing fossil fuels. But in his closing statement for the defense, DOJ attorney Michael Sawyer said that wasn’t the only thing the plaintiffs had to show. They have to prove they have standing by showing how they’re harmed by the executive orders and how that harm might be relieved by an injunction and eventually a ruling. That last part, known as redressability, was perplexing Christensen, and Sawyer weighed in, saying such an “unprecedented” injunction would be too difficult to police.

“If there were to be a preliminary injunction, there would be numerous requests back here. Every time an agency action is issued that plaintiffs didn’t like, that they thought was too friendly to fossil fuels, they’d be back here again,” Sawyer said. “What we have here is hundreds of lawsuits packed into one.”

The Defendants Brief in Opposition to Plantiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is here.

In addition to the AG Montana and US DOJ, the submission was joined by AGs from:

Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Guam